I remember seeing some sunglasses made from old wine barrels that were like $200 dollars. I think BMW might have been involved too.
Last person to post wins
- Thread starter Magolor04726
- Start date
Fraxinus
chunky plant goop
*puts on 200 dollar sunglasses*
I can't keep up with sunglasses enough to justify spending more than about $5 on a pair. I guess if you were super rich you could just have a $200 pair of sunglasses that stay in your BMW for when you're driving. Or if you wanna be chaotic, own a Mercedes and keep them in there.
Fraxinus
chunky plant goop
i dont have any real pair of sunglasses outside of like goofy party favor ones lol
Now, if you want somewhat of an insider opinion.
Older whisk(e)y isn't necessarily better, it just costs more because it's more rare.
Basically the master blender or distiller in the distillery will take batches from barrels, nose them, taste them, spit them out to determine if they're ready to bottle. Well, there's gotta be times when the guy said, "Nope, it's not ready." And that barrel keeps getting set aside.
Now suppose that guy retires, his son takes his place, assumes the role and the same thing keeps happening.
Eventually, maybe the distillery is looking for something to bottle, so they see this barrel that's been sitting there for decades, so they say, "Let's bottle and sell that as a special edition."
When distilleries make their basic lines, they usually blend from barrels within their own storehouse, hence why age statements specify the age of the youngest barrel.
So rest assured, a 20 year old whisky is indeed 20 years old, but not all of it is 20 years, some of it could be older than that.
But for single malt, that doesn't mean single barrel, it means one distillery made a whisky from malted barley.
I've always been fascinated by how that industry can be so slow moving sometimes. Is there a certain amount of time that a barrel will sit before just being declared a dud?
Oldest whisky I've seen was like 50 years, and it had a price tag to match.
But generally, the law in Scotland at least, requires whisky to be aged a minimum of 3 years and 1 day.
In the United States, it's a bit more fussy. Bourbon just has to be aged in new charred oak barrels, but the law doesn't specify how long unless you're making straight bourbon, which has a 2 year aging requirement.
So yeah, average is minimum of 3 years.
New distilleries make money by either sourcing from other distilleries, then bottling and selling that, or they just make something that doesn't have an aging requirement, like moonshine, gin, rum, or what not, and sell those in the interim while their whisky ages.
Some brands only specialize in blends, like High West and Compass Box.
Is there some lore behind the extra day requirement?
Just to make sure it passes the 3 year mark, because ya know, leap years and alladat.
Man, I was hoping for some Scottish lord drama
Oh, there's some stories.
A ghost haunts the Glenrothes distillery, the Islay folk have a long tradition of illicit distilling before they became legal. My favorite distillery, Ardbeg, has been in business, officially, that is, since 1815.
Before that, they have a history of illegal distilling.
And there's an old abbey distillery that's been shut down since the 1500's, it started up in the 1100's, and now they're restarting up today, and they have two cats to guard the granaries. One of them was named Friar John Claw, in reference to Friar John Corr, one of the earliest whisky distillers in Scotland.
I bet there's some similar businesses in the USA that are gonna be celebrating their 90th anniversary next year that have existed for longer. Illegally brewed alcohol is a cool subject for me, not because I care about the product as much as the fact that if it weren't for moonshine, my favorite sport wouldn't be a thing.
Yep.
The reason Walgreen's peppers the landscape of middle America everywhere is because of Jack Daniels and Prohibition.
Fraxinus
chunky plant goop
